NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are a US citizen,
do you believe the US should honor the treaties it signs,
as the constitution says elected officials and courts must,
or do you think we should ignore them.

(example: ignore treaties with the First Nations, get
rid of the reservations, and thus complete the genocide)


US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



p.s.
If you really think this is a flame or spam, please explain when
you reroute it to the spam forum. It is a simple question on what
people think of treaties the US signs.

You should at least quote the whole thing. The meaning is a little different then.

Otherwise, *gets popcorn*.

I think any pretense of attempting to adhere our laws with the core principles of the Consistution has more or less been going down the toilet in this country for about the last ninety years. They haven't been able to do it all at once, so they've basically just kept on flushing. By my estimation, they're almost done, too.

I don't think any attempt to reconcile the mess of treaties we've signed with the Consitution will do much justice to what the founding fathers had sort of hoped we'd have the sense to maintain for 230 years. Basically it's telling us to live up to our treaties. Unfortunately, after a few generations, people pretend to not know what you were getting at and go fuck it up.

You should at least quote the whole thing. The meaning is a little different then.

Otherwise, *gets popcorn*.

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How is it much different?



Personally, I see the section "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" as specifically saying that treaties are law and should be as strictly abided by as the Constitution or any law.

It would be nice if nations were required to adhere to treaties they sign, but this is not the case. Treaties must be ratified first.
This is why the US isn't violating the Kyoto protocol, even though the Clinton administration signed it. Congress hasn't ratified it and it is therefore the US isn't bound by it.

It would be nice if nations were required to adhere to treaties they sign, but this is not the case. Treaties must be ratified first.
This is why the US isn't violating the Kyoto protocol, even though the Clinton administration signed it. Congress hasn't ratified it and it is therefore the US isn't bound by it.
Yea, but is a treaty properly "made" if it hasn't been ratified? I would say no, so a treaty that hasn't been ratified doesn't count under the Constitution as law.

Yea, but is a treaty properly "made" if it hasn't been ratified? I would say no, so a treaty that hasn't been ratified doesn't count under the Constitution as law.Depends. Multinational treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol don't necessarily require specific nations to sign and ratify to come into effect.

Depends. Multinational treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol don't necessarily require specific nations to sign and ratify to come into effect.
In that case should it not go by the nation in question?

If one nation requires it to be ratified for it to take effect in that nation then fair enough. If one nation doesn't need it to be ratified for it to take effect in that nation then also fair enough.

In that case should it not go by the nation in question?

If one nation requires it to be ratified for it to take effect in that nation then fair enough. If one nation doesn't need it to be ratified for it to take effect in that nation then also fair enough.A treaty doesn't apply to a nation until it is both signed and ratified by it. I don't know what you're trying to get at.

A treaty doesn't apply to a nation until it is both signed and ratified by it. I don't know what you're trying to get at.
Well, specifically taking what you said about not all of the multinational treaties needing signed and ratified by all nations...while some nations might be happy enough with it not needing signed and ratified, others require it. That's basically what I'm saying.

Unless I've just read your post the wrong way or something.

No point signing a treaty if you aren't going to even try ratifying it.

Well, specifically taking what you said about not all of the multinational treaties needing signed and ratified by all nations...while some nations might be happy enough with it not needing signed and ratified, others require it. That's basically what I'm saying.International law requires that a nation both sign and ratify a treaty for it to be binding for that nation. This has to do with the legality of the treaty.
With the "depends" earlier, I meant that a treaty between two or three nations isn't a treaty until all sign and ratify, while a treaty such as the Kyoto protocol needs a set number of nations representing a certain percentage of the world's population to sign and ratify for it to come into effect. A peace treaty wouldn't be a treaty if only one side signs and ratifies while an international agreement would be a treaty even to a nation that hasn't signed or ratified.

an international agreement would be a treaty even to a nation that hasn't signed or ratified.

Yes, I fully understand that.

But what I'm saying is that if a nation's law requires that all treaties are signed and ratified by that nation before it can apply to that nation, then why should they have to abide by a treaty they haven't signed or ratified?

Certainly we should follow through with our promises set forth in treaties, etc., if they're at all relevant or possible. However, politics is still permissible, and things change.. for example, a treaty that allows sharing of certain waters for fishing (say, between Nation A and Nation B) may be voided if one of the parties (say, Nation B) decides to violate an unrelated agreement with a third-party (Nation C). In that case, the credibility of Nation B has been compromised, and the treaty should be reconsidered unless some justification can be proved.. yeah.

Also, treaties, like laws, must carry the threat of force. Treaties with nations who were once strong, but are today basically impotent, are respected at the leisure of the strong, for honor's sake, not out of any sense of obligation (e.g., our deals with the Indians). So basically, they originally got their sovereignty as a deal to get them to stop attacking along trade routes, but today enjoy those rights as a gift, more or less. We can always have the BATF and FBI surround their reservations and come in with tanks or sniper teams, etc., as in Wounded Knee, if they decide to test their boundaries. Power remains the real bargaining chip, not paper. ;)

Int'l treaties screw with our soveriegnty and the value of the Constitution.
I say the fewer we sign, and at least make them ones that are within the bounds of the Constitution, the better.

Yes, I fully understand that.

But what I'm saying is that if a nation's law requires that all treaties are signed and ratified by that nation before it can apply to that nation, then why should they have to abide by a treaty they haven't signed or ratified?They don't. I'm sorry if it seemed like I said that. I was merely pointing out that something can still be a treaty to someone even if they haven't signed or ratified, eventhough it isn't legally binding to them. ;)

Int'l treaties screw with our soveriegnty and the value of the Constitution.
I say the fewer we sign, and at least make them ones that are within the bounds of the Constitution, the better.That's a very backward notion. Today's world is too interwoven not to have international treaties regulating things. They "screw" with national sovereignity as much as laws "screw" with your freedoms.
Things aren't like they used to be when news of something happening in China wouldn't have made it to France.

Many posters here imply that because the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, etc., is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority.
This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition), or the UN Charter (a treaty in force and valid today), it is clear that a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties. The Court can overrule itself in the future, of course, but IMO it is unlikely.

International law requires that a nation both sign and ratify a treaty for it to be binding for that nation. This has to do with the legality of the treaty.
With the "depends" earlier, I meant that a treaty between two or three nations isn't a treaty until all sign and ratify, while a treaty such as the Kyoto protocol needs a set number of nations representing a certain percentage of the world's population to sign and ratify for it to come into effect. A peace treaty wouldn't be a treaty if only one side signs and ratifies while an international agreement would be a treaty even to a nation that hasn't signed or ratified.

You're also dealing with multi-leveled law. Ultimately, individual states are still "Sovereign" over their borders. The issue is, the Kyoto (for example) is not effective "law" within the United States, as there is no enforcement power behind it persuant to the body politic of this country. Treaties in US law have the same restrictions as any other law; they require approval by the legislature... And anything which the legislature has not approved, is not law.

Many posters here imply that because the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, etc., is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority.
This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition), or the UN Charter (a treaty in force and valid today), it is clear that a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties. The Court can overrule itself in the future, of course, but IMO it is unlikely.

Exactly, the US is constructed in a upwards direction.... Ultimate "Supremecy" lies with the foundation (The people); power is invested by the people to the Government (The Constitution), which define the structure (Government); who are empowered to make and approve legislation (laws and treaties)... So US supremecy runs as this...

1. The People
2. The Constitution
3. Laws and Treaties

Laws and Treaties are equal with one another... However BOTH are in subjection to The Constitution; which defines their scope in power as given by The People.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties. The Court can overrule itself in the future, of course, but IMO it is unlikely.


I'm not going to "get off this notion".
I do disagree with the ruling.

treaties become "the supreme law of the land".
What is the "supreme law of the land" ?
The US Constitution. of course (one doesn't need a special education to know that)
I therefore believe treaties are something akin to an amendment to the constitution. To me it seems pretty plain and straitforward.
But with a proper education one could learn the proper ways to
serve power.

If we are against a treaty, don't sign it,
or if we don't like one we are in, withdraw.
How does we withdraw?
The US constitution only states explicitly how to legally enter into a treaty.
So, it is reasonable to assume that if the treaty itself does not stipulate
how to withdraw, that exiting a treaty (constitutionally) would be the same process as entering into it, via senate vote(?)

Laws and Treaties are equal with one another... However BOTH are in subjection to The Constitution; which defines their scope in power as given by The People.



There have been laws that have had to be amended do to international treaties
signed.

Therefore treaties and laws cannot be exactly equal.


Plus since Nuremburg we have an obligation to disobey.
sad that we need a law to tell (remind) us to disobey the law

I'm not going to "get off this notion".
I do disagree with the ruling.


Too bad. It's the way things are. You would have a better chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Too bad. It's the way things are. You would have a better chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.



Yeah, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of power like
Hillary Clinton and deny women's basic human right to not have
the gov't own their uterus' (bodies).

War is illegal, unless actually attacked.
International law makes this clear (treaties regarding such the US signed),
US constitution says we must adhere to or obey international treaties we sign.
(Although not legal, if we like the concept of honor, we will adhere to signed treaties)
US constitution also makes war making illegal (unconstitutional) other than an actual attack or a Congressional declaration of war.

I'm not about to float myself down a river
and pander to power and its institutions that tries to convince
us that war making is 'legal' and therefore 'ok'.

I guess I'll just have to work at disobeying.

The way things are going,
The Jews & Native Americans won't mind.

Also, treaties, like laws, must carry the threat of force. Treaties with nations who were once strong, but are today basically impotent, are respected at the leisure of the strong, for honor's sake, not out of any sense of obligation (e.g., our deals with the Indians). So basically, they originally got their sovereignty as a deal to get them to stop attacking along trade routes, but today enjoy those rights as a gift, more or less. We can always have the BATF and FBI surround their reservations and come in with tanks or sniper teams, etc., as in Wounded Knee, if they decide to test their boundaries. Power remains the real bargaining chip, not paper. ;)


power.
if power had any honor...


Indegenous Nations always had sovereignty.
It was us European decendants that attacked them.
Maybe it was the Jews in Germany that started to awaken our conscience?
Today more and more ordinary people are becoming aware
of the genocide of the First Nations still going on (btw).
Witness the fbi's illegal and immoral, fascistic 'cointelpro' of the 50s-70s.
And today we want to dump our nuclear toxic waste in their lands.
We just never let up. Our high German technology proves we are
"superior" to any other uncivilized people of this earth. harrr

So, we can adhere to treaties, and thusly other people's sovereignty,
or be basically Hitler. (Hitler did, afterall, look to the N American continent
as an example for expansion and ghettoization)

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties.This is quite interesting. Given that the text of the constitution itself basically says otherwise, do you happen to know the gist of the reasoning they used here?

This is quite interesting. Given that the text of the constitution itself basically says otherwise, do you happen to know the gist of the reasoning they used here?

The Constitution doesn't say otherwise.

Here, read the Reid v. Covert for yourself:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001b.htm

It isn't new. Every nation that has had dealings with the US is well aware of this.

Int'l treaties screw with our soveriegnty and the value of the Constitution.
I say the fewer we sign, and at least make them ones that are within the bounds of the Constitution, the better.

That's a difficult argument to sustain. Is that what you would use to justify the US being the only country (other than Somalia, which doesn't count because it has no government) in the world not to have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example?

(Source: Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT760151999?open&of=ENG-HUN))

Ten years ago, the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a landmark for human rights. Here for the first time was a treaty that sought to address the particular human rights of children and to set minimum legal standards for the protection of their rights. It is the only international treaty to guarantee civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights.

The Convention's importance is demonstrated by the fact that is has been ratified by all but two states: Somalia and the USA. Somalia has no functioning government, but the USA continues to lead a defensive action against children's rights, lobbying against further measures designed to protect children – most recently against efforts to stop the use of child soldiers.


And no, before you ask, I'm not accusing the US of (directly) violating children's rights. There are many countries which are signatories but do violate them, whereas the US isn't a signatory but doesn't. My point is that the US is the most cautious country in the world when it comes to international treaties. It's not ratified Kyoto (which even Russia has done). It refuses to recognise the ICJ (openly admitting that it's because it fears US soldiers could be put on trial for human rights' abuses). There's something fundamentally contradictory when the US claims a duty to lead the world, while at the same time opting out of every bit of progressive international legislation. You can't have it both ways.


Edit: Actually, I assume the reason why the US refuses to sign is because the Convention would prevent it from executing juvenile offenders. Taken from AI's 2002 report on the Americas:


The USA was once again the only country in the region to carry out executions. By the end of 2002, 71 people had been executed, 33 of them in Texas alone. The USA was the only known country in the world to execute juvenile offenders, when three child offenders were executed in Texas. In a positive sign, the US Supreme Court ruled that executing people with mental impairment was unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't say otherwise.

Here, read the Reid v. Covert for yourself:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001b.htm

It isn't new. Every nation that has had dealings with the US is well aware of this.

I'm sorry, when reading the actual consitution, it seems it does:
US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu....articlevi.html
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

After reading through that entire case you linked to, I see nothing that even addresses Article VI. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, however, so if you could be so kind, please point out to me where they say that this statement in Article VI simply doesn't apply.

I'm sorry, when reading the actual consitution, it seems it does:
US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu....articlevi.html
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

After reading through that entire case you linked to, I see nothing that even addresses Article VI. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, however, so if you could be so kind, please point out to me where they say that this statement in Article VI simply doesn't apply.


This misunderstanding about whether the constitution could be amended through the making of treaties was denied in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):

"This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty" [Reid, at p. 17].

"... when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null." [Reid, supra, citing Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 238, at p. 267]

"No agreement with a foreign nation (no exec. orders, no Pres. directives, no "accords" etc.) can confer power on Congress or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the constitution" [Reid, supra].

Edit: Actually, I assume the reason why the US refuses to sign is because the Convention would prevent it from executing juvenile offenders. Taken from AI's 2002 report on the Americas:



I thought it was due to the part against child soldiers.
Unless I'm mistaken, the treaty calls for no one under 18 to be a soldier.

In the US, again, unless I am mistaken, there is still one branch,
(I think the navy) which allows one to join at either 16 or 17.


I could be both.

Ah! I've got it now. You linked to the appended documents (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001b.htm), not the judgement itself (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm). Okay. That expresses it more clearly.

It's interesting though that by this ruling, it seems that the US is basically admitting that it is not observing the Geneva Convention or UN charter:

"that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null."

Which seems to mean that for the Iraq conflict, at any rate, the US can not rely on Geneva convention or UN charter to protect it's own forces either.

I understand the justices point however.. since a treaty can be made or abrogated with much less restriction than the constitution, it stands to reason that it cannot be considered equal to the constitution. The reasoning makes sense, though a strict interpretation of the Constitution itself would deny this.

Ah! I've got it now. You linked to the appended documents (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001b.htm), not the judgement itself (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm). Okay. That expresses it more clearly.

It's interesting though that by this ruling, it seems that the US is basically admitting that it is not observing the Geneva Convention or UN charter:

"that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null."

Which seems to mean that for the Iraq conflict, at any rate, the US can not rely on Geneva convention or UN charter to protect it's own forces either.

I understand the justices point however.. since a treaty can be made or abrogated with much less restriction than the constitution, it stands to reason that it cannot be considered equal to the constitution. The reasoning makes sense, though a strict interpretation of the Constitution itself would deny this.


Insofar as Iraqi soldiers are concerned, they have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. But according to Convention I, Article 2, members of organizations like al-Qaeda do not. They are neither signatories, nor are they members of an organization that agrees to abide by the provisions of the Convention, nor have they demonstrated such.

In fact, it might be said that regardless of the actions of the US, none of its militant Islamic opponents have ever intended to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Or the Hague Conventions. Or any convention, for that matter.

Our behavior, one way or the other, is not influencing the decisions that the terrorists and insurgents have already made.

1st
Where:
Here, read the Reid v. Covert for yourself:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001b.htm
are the above quotes?

You need to read the citations.

Insofar as Iraqi soldiers are concerned, they have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. But according to Convention I, Article 2, members of organizations like al-Qaeda do not. They are neither signatories, nor are they members of an organization that agrees to abide by the provisions of the Convention, nor have they demonstrated such.



1st,
all human beings have rights, period,
gov't laws and constitutions non-withstanding.
human beings are members of militaries or other groups or organizations
a far, far distant 2nd.


you're not trying to say,
that because a group, be it a country, military, or whatever,
has not signed the convention they have no rights?


I keep finding Geneva Convention 3,
I havn't found 1 yet.

Is this thread...like...for real?

1st,
all human beings have rights, period,
gov't laws and constitutions non-withstanding.
human beings are members of militaries or other groups or organizations
a far, far distant 2nd.


you're not trying to say,
that because a group, be it a country, military, or whatever,
has not signed the convention they have no rights?


I keep finding Geneva Convention 3,
I havn't found 1 yet.


If, as you and others have done before, claim that non-signatories have rights under the Convention, I recommend the reading of Convention I, Article 2 in its entirety. http://www.genevaconventions.org

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Note that most members of al-Qaeda are not citizens of Iraq, nor were they members of its official armed forces. Iraq was a signatory. The Taliban were not. Neither is al-Qaeda. It's there in black and white - if you're not part of a High Contracting Party, and not part of a third party that is helping a High Contracting Party, and you're not accepting and implementing the provisions of the Convention (i.e., you're slitting throats on al-Jazeera and flying civilian airliners into skyscrapers), you're dead meat if you're captured.

Insofar as Iraqi soldiers are concerned, they have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. But according to Convention I, Article 2, members of organizations like al-Qaeda do not. They are neither signatories, nor are they members of an organization that agrees to abide by the provisions of the Convention, nor have they demonstrated such.


I'm reading Geneva Convention 3, Article 2.

And it says that even if one war making party is a signatory
and another is not, Geneva Convention 3 at least, applies.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art2

But aside from all written laws,
all humans have rights and they are inaliable.
You, yes you, can be a nazi if you want and deny your sister and brother
rights. But why would you do that to your sister and brother?

I'm reading Geneva Convention 3, Article 2.

And it says that even if one war making party is a signatory
and another is not, Geneva Convention 3 at least, applies.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art2

But aside from all written laws,
all humans have rights and they are inaliable.
You, yes you, can be a nazi if you want and deny your sister and brother
rights. But why would you do that to your sister and brother?

Only if the other non-signatory party is accepting and applying the Convention. Which al-Qaeda most certainly is not. Alternatively, the non-signatory party could be the ally of a signatory, but this is not the case.

So they're screwed.

Note that most members of al-Qaeda are not citizens of Iraq, nor were they members of its official armed forces. Iraq was a signatory. The Taliban were not. Neither is al-Qaeda. It's there in black and white - if you're not part of a High Contracting Party, and not part of a third party that is helping a High Contracting Party, and you're not accepting and implementing the provisions of the Convention (i.e., you're slitting throats on al-Jazeera and flying civilian airliners into skyscrapers), you're dead meat if you're captured.



What are you talking about?!?

It says right there, that signatories have to adbide by it no matter what
other parties have done.

I'm reading Geneva Convention 3, Article 2.

And it says that even if one war making party is a signatory
and another is not, Geneva Convention 3 at least, applies.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art2

But aside from all written laws,
all humans have rights and they are inaliable.
You, yes you, can be a nazi if you want and deny your sister and brother
rights. But why would you do that to your sister and brother?

I would ask you then, what right to life does a man have who is drowning alone in the middle of the ocean.

You need to stop saying that "the Geneva Convention" this and that. If you want those "inalienable" rights, you need to learn how to spell, and you need to have nations agree on a new set of Conventions.

My sister and brother don't fly civilian airliners into skyscrapers. They don't slit women's throats on television.

What are you talking about?!?

It says right there, that signatories have to adbide by it no matter what
other parties have done.

You need to learn how to read.

If the other party is not a High Contracting Party, and they do not agree to abide by the Conventions, they do not apply.

I posted the whole thing so you could read it.

Only if the other non-signatory party is accepting and applying the Convention. Which al-Qaeda most certainly is not. Alternatively, the non-signatory party could be the ally of a signatory, but this is not the case.

So they're screwed.



Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


All that is saying is that if one is a signatory,
and a 2nd isn't,
the 2nd can still be held accountable if they do not abide by the convention.

It does not give a open field for torture of non-signatories.
Someone's got to have a lot of gall to actually think that
1) it reads that; 2) the authors of the convention actually intended
it to say that something like torture of non-signatories would be ok.


gosh.
one's gotta be a real creap to even
think torture would be ok, let alone that
some international treaty would make it 'legal'.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


All that is saying is that if one is a signatory,
and a 2nd isn't,
the 2nd can still be held accountable if they do not abide by the convention.

It does not give a open field for torture of non-signatories.
Someone's got to have a lot of gall to actually think that
1) it reads that; 2) the authors of the convention actually intended
it to say that something like torture of non-signatories would be ok.


Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention (this means that there may be more than two powers in conflict, i.e., two who are Parties to the Convention, and one who is Not)

, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. (this means the Parties to the Convention will still treat each other according to the Convention)

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. (this means that the Parties to the Convention will apply the Convention to the non-signatory, if the non-signatory accepts and applies the Convention).

This means, then, that since

al-Qaeda is neither a signatory, nor accepting and applying the Conventions, and is in fact, going well out of its way to commit the most egregious violations of the Conventions possible, that none of its members are entitled to the protections of the Conventions.

Which means that, if captured by US soldiers, they could be shot on the spot. There would be no reason to accept their surrender, other than for intelligence value.

Worldwide, the US already takes credit for assassinating 75 percent of the al-Qaeda membership since 9-11. Not capturing - killing.

, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

this means that signatory parties, still have to remain bound by it in mutual
relations.
be it 2 signatories in their mutual relations (war/conflict),
or 5 signatory and 2 who are not, in their mutual relations(war/coflict), signatories still have to abide by it.
This is in relation to mercenary forces or allies that are not signatories.
During their mutual relations (war/conflict), signatories and those
allied with them have to abide by the conventions.





Do you honestly believe it was the intent of the authors of the
conventions to make it 'ok' for some humans to be denied their
basic rights?
Do you really believe that?

It has nothing to do with "OKing" denial of rights.

No one in their right mind in attempting to guarantee inaliable
human rights would ok such a denial.

Gosh.
Talk about twisting the words.

, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

this means that signatory parties, still have to remain bound by it in mutual
relations.
be it 2 signatories in their mutual relations (war/conflict),
or 5 signatory and 2 who are not, in their mutual relations(war/coflict), signatories still have to abide by it.
This is in relation to mercenary forces or allies that are not signatories.
During their mutual relations (war/conflict), signatories and those
allied with them have to abide by the conventions.

Do you honestly believe it was the intent of the authors of the
conventions to make it 'ok' for some humans to be denied their
basic rights?
Do you really believe that?

It has nothing to do with "OKing" denial of rights.

No one in their right mind in attempting to guarantee inaliable
human rights would ok such a denial.

Gosh.
Talk about twisting the words.

Nope, mercenaries can be shot on sight. When I was in the Army we received explicit instructions on this. In fact, we were warned to stay in uniform, and always have our dog tags and ID card - caught without that combination, we could be subject to being shot after capture.

It's historical precedent. Read your history.

Yes, the Conventions guarantee rights only to those who sign them or intend to abide by them. That's not twisting words.

The Conventions were intended not as a global blanket granting of rights. They were intended to define rules of conduct between contracting parties, or those who wished to abide by those rules of conduct.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


This section is about, if a non-signatory does not abide by the Convention which another party in coflict signs, the non-signatory will be held accountable in a war crimes if they do not apply them.


And it does not give Convention signers a free pass that they will not be held
for war crimes if they do not adhere to the Convention.
Only a dipshit would argue the dissolution of standards made as
a result of WW2.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This section is about, if a non-signatory does not abide by the Convention which another party in coflict signs, the non-signatory will be held accountable in a war crimes if they do not apply them.

And it does not give Convention signers a free pass that they will not be held
for war crimes if they do not adhere to the Convention.
Only a dipshit would argue the dissolution of standards made as
a result of WW2.

The first sentence there bound by the convention IF.

If the latter does not accept the provisions, we are not bound by the Convention.

Learn to read English.

The first sentence there bound by the convention IF.

If the latter does not accept the provisions, we are not bound by the Convention.

Learn to read English.




It has absolutely nothing to do with legitimizing the denial of inaliable
human rights for anybody.

It seems you are trying to make the argument for this.
Why would anybody want to be like the old Soviet Union?

'doesn't argue this cause they can't'

It has absolutely nothing to do with legitimizing the denial of inaliable
human rights for anybody.

It seems you are trying to make the argument for this.
Why would anybody want to be like the old Soviet Union?

'doesn't argue this cause they can't'

Show me where in the Conventions that people have inalienable rights. Go ahead. It isn't in there.

I really like this new definition they made up
"illegal combatants"

Well, gee, they wouldn't be
"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
would they?

No,
that would be us admitting we are in Iraq &, and, AND Afghanistan for conquest.

Afterall, the Taliban offered to hand over binLadin to a 3rd country.
Because the Bush administration refused to negotiate to make this ok,
they attacked a sovereign nation (well, Taliban wasn't really the legal gov't either) unconstitutionally.

yes, George W Bush is a war criminal.
Before Iraq.

Show me where in the Conventions that people have inalienable rights. Go ahead. It isn't in there.


Humans aren't humans. No way man.

Geneva convention trumps all other legal documents?
International treaties on human rights?
US declaration of independence?

Reduces humans to either war makers or civilians?


People are people long before they take up arms against our sisters & brothers

(human) rights are inaliable. endowed by our creator (a god or our parents or whatever). this is self-evident. the stuff on paper is only there
to remind us (and try to keep the powerful from abusing their power)

This is quite interesting. Given that the text of the constitution itself basically says otherwise, do you happen to know the gist of the reasoning they used here?

Common Sense..... Treaties are made by approval of the Government, the Government's power is defined by the Constitution; a treaty cannot stand without the constitution (in the US system), and a treaty cannot amend the constitution (The Amendment process is the most strict part of the system)... Ultimately the duty of the US Government (as based constitutionally) through the "Social Contract" of the Constitution; is to the people first, and foreign interests after.... Such is a BASIC NECESSITY for a democratic system.... Especially a representative one (the Governemnt represents the PEOPLE of the country, and is under no direct obligation to any foreign interest, except those interests alloted by the People; whereby the Government is empowered to enter into and make treaty with foreign powers)... Nothing is greater than that which created it, and all treaties (legally speaking within the United States) are "Created by" the institution which was created by the Constitution, created by the People...

Thus...
1. THE PEOPLE...
2. The Constitution
3. The Government (Laws) and Treaties...

anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

You seem to be lacking slightly reading comprehension...

that "the Constitution" is not the same "This Constitution" as in the first sentence... Context alone should have told you that....

Let me help you...

[(This Constitution) and (the laws of)] the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

anything in the [(Constitution) or (laws)] of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....

The first part is dealing with United States Constitution, Law and Treaty...

The end is dealing with State Constitution and Laws...

Or I could bring up the fact that the "United States Constitution" throughout itself, reffers to itself as "This Constitution"..... and that remark says "THE CONSTITUTION".... In any case, you read out of context...

Humans aren't humans. No way man.

Geneva convention trumps all other legal documents?
International treaties on human rights?
US declaration of independence?

Reduces humans to either war makers or civilians?


People are people long before they take up arms against our sisters & brothers

(human) rights are inaliable. endowed by our creator (a god or our parents or whatever). this is self-evident. the stuff on paper is only there
to remind us (and try to keep the powerful from abusing their power)

You can't charge anyone with a war crime if the documents don't make it a war crime.

You should know better than that.

If you are a US citizen,
do you believe the US should honor the treaties it signs,
as the constitution says elected officials and courts must,
or do you think we should ignore them.

(example: ignore treaties with the First Nations, get
rid of the reservations, and thus complete the genocide)


US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



p.s.
If you really think this is a flame or spam, please explain when
you reroute it to the spam forum. It is a simple question on what
people think of treaties the US signs.


2 things...
1.) Only judges are bound to abide by treaties and only so long as they are in force. The other branches may repeal them at their whim. Read the text... it nowhere says that other "elected officers" are so bound. And "judges in every state" was included to eliminate any confusion as to whether the a treaty, federal law, or the constitution trumps state law. If the other branches were perpetually bound to honor the treaties, then no treaty could ever be repealed. This is obviously not the case. They may be repealed at any time.

2.) Treaties must comply with the constitution and are in no way equal with the Constitution. Since treaties must subordinate to the constitution by complying with it, they are not on equal ground. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). There, the court found nothing in the history or language of the Supremacy Clause "which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant [...] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution." Rather, the Court thought the only reason that the language was not limited strictly to those treaties and laws made in "'pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation [would] remain in effect." Treaties are the "Supreme Law of the land" in the same way as an act of congress is. They are not elevated to the level of Constitutional law. That point is what they call "settled law."

To further Illustrate:

Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause

The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation ''is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States--'the supreme law of the land'.'' (1) State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. (2) While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature. (3) The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law, (4) it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts.

(1) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 335 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=14&invol=304#335) (1816); Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=93&invol=130) (1876); Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=223&invol=1) (1912); & Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=386) (1947)

(2) Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=358&invol=1) (1958)

(3) Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=496&invol=356) (1990) & Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=487&invol=131) (1988)

(4) Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=318&invol=363) (1943); Textile Workers of America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=353&invol=448) (1957); & Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=406&invol=91) (1972)

That is saying, that (This Constitution)[The Constitution of the United States]; and the Laws of the United States made in persuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States [That is, the "United States" as an entity defined and created under This Constitution, or under the previous Articles of Confederation], shall be the supreme law of the land; and judges in every state [that is, every state under the authority of this Constitution] shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [that is, the Constitution of a state under the authority of This Constitution] of laws [that is, the laws of a state under the authority of this Constitution] of any State [a party to this Constitution] to the contrary notwithstanding....

IOW, a State justice cannot use State Law, or State Constitution to rule against the United States Constitution, Laws Passed by Congress persuant thereunto, or treaties made by the United States [either as the United States under The Constitution of the United States (1789 - present); or The United States under the Articles of Confederation(1777-1788)].

***

To further illustrate... In all bodily cases of the Constitution making contextual refferences to itself it reffers to itself as "T/this Constitution"...

-Preamble...

"establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-Article I, Section 8...

"and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

-Article II, Section 1...

"at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,"

-Article III, Section 2...

"arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States"

-Article IV, Section 3...

"and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

"shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution"

-Article V...

"shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

-Article VI...

"before the adoption of this Constitution,"

"shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States"

"shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"

-Article VII...

"shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

****

Only twice is "the Constitution" mentioned...

-Article II, Section 1...

[Orginal Quotes, Verbatim Text for Presidential Oath of Office]"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

-Article VI...

"anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"

The first being a constitutionally mandated and quoted oath of Presidential office.... The second making refference to State Constitutions...

You can't charge anyone with a war crime if the documents don't make it a war crime.

You should know better than that.



Tell that to those who were tried (rightfully so) at Nueremburg.


torturers and those that order them,
no matter the uniform or none, even a local police uniform,
are still nazis.



that denotation will never be washed away from the public conscience

Tell that to those who were tried (rightfully so) at Nueremburg.


torturers and those that order them,
no matter the uniform or none, even a local police uniform,
are still nazis.



that denotation will never be washed away from the public conscience

IIRC, the men at Nuremburg were charged with violating the Fourth Hague Convention.

You're still thinking that people can be charged with something that isn't written down.

It's called the rule of law for a reason - we do not live in the age of the Rule of Man.

Tell that to those who were tried (rightfully so) at Nueremburg.


torturers and those that order them,
no matter the uniform or none, even a local police uniform,
are still nazis.



that denotation will never be washed away from the public conscience

They were charged with already present, and accepted, law; at the time of their acts.

Ex-Post-Facto law, is anathema to most of the civilized world.

IIRC, the men at Nuremburg were charged with violating the Fourth Hague Convention.

...
... as well as the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1928.

They were charged with already present, and accepted, law; at the time of their acts.

Ex-Post-Facto law, is anathema to most of the civilized world.
It can be argued that the London Charter was an ex post facto law; it expanded the concept of war crimes, and the tribunal proceedings were not bound by any law, except the London Charter itself, or by techical rules of evidence.

It can be argued that the London Charter was an ex post facto law; it expanded the concept of war crimes, and the tribunal proceedings were not bound by any law, except the London Charter itself, or by techical rules of evidence.

Actually, no.... The London Charter, accurately titled "The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal" created the court, under convention of the Hague, to constitute the court whereby the trials of violations of war-crimes (under the hague) would be prosecuted.... The London Charter only created the court whereby Hague stipulations and violations were ruled... It did not "expand" anything past what was already codified into treaties (accepted and signed by Germany)... It did not "create" any actual law violations... But categorized types of violations available in the Hague (which Germany was a party to).

Actually, no.... The London Charter, accurately titled "The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal" created the court, under convention of the Hague, to constitute the court whereby the trials of violations of war-crimes (under the hague) would be prosecuted.... The London Charter only created the court whereby Hague stipulations and violations were ruled... It did not "expand" anything past what was already codified into treaties (accepted and signed by Germany)... It did not "create" any actual law violations... But categorized types of violations available in the Hague (which Germany was a party to).
I object.

The London Charter was based on the Hague Conventions, but it was not 'created under them'. The IMT was a creation of the Control Council of Germany, which exercised the sovereign right of Germany to try its criminals, which was transferred to the Council when Germany surrendered.

As for expansion (italics mine): 'Article 6 (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...'

As for expansion (italics mine): 'Article 6 (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to,

;)

murder,

Violation of Hague Article 4.


ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory,

Violation of Hague, Article 6.


killing of hostages,

Article 4 and 23.


plunder of public or private property,

Article 28, 46 and 47..


wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...'

Article 23, 25, and 27..

And this is certainly, by no means, a comprehensive list of all Hague stipulations.

-snip-

And this is certainly, by no means, a comprehensive list of all Hague stipulations.
What Hague convention do you quote?? Certainly there is not a word about any of them in the London Charter. ;)

What Hague convention do you quote?? Certainly there is not a word about any of them in the London Charter. ;)

"WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war"

Stipulating particular "laws and customs"... Except, no where does the London actually "address" what particular laws and customs are... No need to, there is existing laws to do that (The Fourth Hague Convention [circa. 1907]) which existed in force, till it was replaced by the Second Geneva Convention Treaty [1949]; and which Germany was a signatory to, and thus prosecutable under; as well the original 1899 agreement, which was drafted by the German Emporer... Also, the Versailles Treaty [1919] ending WW1....

The following being an inclusive (but by no means exclusive) list of offenses stipulated under all treaties to which Germany was a party to. In fact, the London Convention itself is empowered by the Versailles (Article 228).


The German Government recognises the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law.

If you are a US citizen,
do you believe the US should honor the treaties it signs,
as the constitution says elected officials and courts must,
or do you think we should ignore them.

(example: ignore treaties with the First Nations, get
rid of the reservations, and thus complete the genocide)


US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



p.s.
If you really think this is a flame or spam, please explain when
you reroute it to the spam forum. It is a simple question on what
people think of treaties the US signs.

Treaties? Treaties! we don't need no stinking treaties, we is da badest dudes on da planet, what do we need treaties for?

"WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war"

Stipulating particular "laws and customs"... Except, no where does the London actually "address" what particular laws and customs are... No need to, there is existing laws to do that ...
Actually I was playing something more of a devil's advocate here, but I've never met before such reasoned argument as yours. :)

IIRC, the men at Nuremburg were charged with violating the Fourth Hague Convention.

You're still thinking that people can be charged with something that isn't written down.

It's called the rule of law for a reason - we do not live in the age of the Rule of Man.



I am to assume you are currently seeking the impeachment for Bush's unconstitutional war on Iraq, and seeking a trial for Clinton for waring on Kosovo without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war?

They were charged with already present, and accepted, law; at the time of their acts.

Ex-Post-Facto law, is anathema to most of the civilized world.




so peoples without a written language are by that defintion, uncivilized?

I wouldn't agree witht that supremacist notion.

I am to assume you are currently seeking the impeachment for Bush's unconstitutional war on Iraq, and seeking a trial for Clinton for waring on Kosovo without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war?

As I pointed out, it's not unconstitutional. Bush was given authority under provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Care to try again?

Shin it is worth reading a legal document from time to time.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Note this part, Shin:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);


Note that it says 1998. Note that it does not say, "Bush concluded". It says that Congress concluded. Back during the Clinton Administration.

Wow. And I thought from hearing you post Shin, that Bush had somehow convinced Congress of a bunch of stuff Bush made up. Well, Bush wasn't in office in 1998, was he?

Looks like they were already convinced - back in 1998.

they are right, when nuclear holocaust comes to the planet, it will be perfectly legal, so, we can all sleep assuredly knowing we are good citizens for breaking no law whatsoever.



it was once against the law to help slaves escape

and even the US declaration of independence places a group
of people outside the realm of rights - "merciless Indian savages".

the founding document for our country is racist and white supremacist.
can you believe it.

but it is written law (the us supreme court holds the declaration to be a
semi- or quasi- or something- legal document.),
so it must be o.k.

they are right, when nuclear holocaust comes to the planet, it will be perfectly legal, so, we can all sleep assuredly knowing we are good citizens for breaking no law whatsoever.

If you read carefully, you'll notice that this is a world of laws. If you don't like the laws, change them. There's nothing stopping you.

it was once against the law to help slaves escape
Yes, and people went to jail for it. That didn't change until the law changed.

and even the US declaration of independence places a group of people outside the realm of rights - "merciless Indian savages".
Everyone back then was a racist - it is unreasonable to think that people of that day have the same sensibilities we have today. Also, to our credit, our world has changed - through the changing of laws.


the founding document for our country is racist and white supremacist. can you believe it.
That does not invalidate any of it. The parts we've found objectionable over the years have changed, if you've bothered to study history.

but it is written law (the us supreme court holds the declaration to be a semi- or quasi- or something- legal document.),
so it must be o.k.
Are you saying you would prefer a government where nothing was written down and the President could order anyone to do anything he pleased?

The reason we write down laws is to define and constrain the powers of the various branches of government. If you don't like the law or constitution, then change it.

Wringing your hands in a helpless hopelessly overwrought moralistic fashion isn't going to change anything.

Note this part, Shin:

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);


Note that it says 1998. Note that it does not say, "Bush concluded". It says that Congress concluded. Back during the Clinton Administration.

Wow. And I thought from hearing you post Shin, that Bush had somehow convinced Congress of a bunch of stuff Bush made up. Well, Bush wasn't in office in 1998, was he?

Looks like they were already convinced - back in 1998.


I'm sorry if I come across "anti-Bush" or anything. US foreign policy has been rotten to the core well before. legal or not.
us "interests". I always find that phrase to be quite the joke.
its about imperialism. someone's interest. the powers that be.
look at the power structure inside the US. who is the powerful.
that is whose interest the politicians doing the dirty work slap that phrase on.

declarations of war.
that's what's required for war making.
war making is war making.
unless actually attacked, states the US constitution.

I'm no fan of Clinton's reign of empire either.
there is no honor in empire, as empire
means others are subjegated, i.e. slaves of one form or another.

and no, it's not a simply matter of 'hegemony', simply more influence in the world. the us, is, and has actively worked to increase its military, economic, and political will on the peoples of the planet and their countries.
for example: telling other countries that they have to accept the legal
structures that are corporations. never mind that those institutions themselves violate the very essence of the "free trade" ideology that they
claim to be forcing down other people's throats.
but, hey, if a dictator over there, or a coalition provisional authority (read colonial authority) signs something into law, it must be legal and right.
never mind if said dictator got into power by the cia overthrowing a democratically and constitutionally elected government. ho ho.
I know, they're not worthy of the inaliable human rights that we are.
(regardless of written documents. inaliable human rights are just that.
maybe those caught violating them may or may not be held accountable,
but they will not be remembered in good light.

I'm sorry if I come across "anti-Bush" or anything. US foreign policy has been rotten to the core well before. legal or not.
us "interests". I always find that phrase to be quite the joke.
its about imperialism. someone's interest. the powers that be.
look at the power structure inside the US. who is the powerful.
that is whose interest the politicians doing the dirty work slap that phrase on.

declarations of war.
that's what's required for war making.
war making is war making.
unless actually attacked, states the US constitution.

I'm no fan of Clinton's reign of empire either.
there is no honor in empire, as empire
means others are subjegated, i.e. slaves of one form or another.

and no, it's not a simply matter of 'hegemony', simply more influence in the world. the us, is, and has actively worked to increase its military, economic, and political will on the peoples of the planet and their countries.
for example: telling other countries that they have to accept the legal
structures that are corporations. never mind that those institutions themselves violate the very essence of the "free trade" ideology that they
claim to be forcing down other people's throats.
but, hey, if a dictator over there, or a coalition provisional authority (read colonial authority) signs something into law, it must be legal and right.
never mind if said dictator got into power by the cia overthrowing a democratically and constitutionally elected government. ho ho.
I know, they're not worthy of the inaliable human rights that we are.
(regardless of written documents. inaliable human rights are just that.
maybe those caught violating them may or may not be held accountable,
but they will not be remembered in good light.


Nations act in their own interest. You need to read about realpolitik.

International conduct of nations has absolutely nothing to do with the high minded ideals put forth in various declarations, treaties, and "international laws".

Saddam could hardly be called a democratically elected leader.

As for the current leaders of Iraq, we didn't get to appoint who we wanted to run the country. And the guy we wanted to win the election didn't win.

So they finally do have an elected government.

As I pointed out, it's not unconstitutional. Bush was given authority under provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Care to try again?



ok.

Clinton's bombing of civilian infrastructure in Kosovo,
(or in Iraq for that matter).
passenger trains.

the US bombing water treatment plants in Iraq in the 1991 oil war in Iraq.


the war powers act?
it is my opinion (ok i said it), that that act would be held unconstitutional
if challenged in the supreme court. or not, because they often use some
weird non-constitutional terminology such as "national interest" or something goofy like that which is clearly the interests of the domestically powerful.

the war powers act was a feeble attempt to reign the imperial workings
of us foreign policy. it's like it coopted opposition to war making.

If memory serves, a us president is supposed to give a report every
3 months AND get reauthorization every 3 months under the that act.
Has this occurred?


Maybe you're just talking the 'legal' arguement and I shouldn't hold it against you.
Perhaps you are not showing whether or not you believe this stuff to be immoral.
war is our common enemy.

ok.

Clinton's bombing of civilian infrastructure in Kosovo,
(or in Iraq for that matter).
passenger trains.

the US bombing water treatment plants in Iraq in the 1991 oil war in Iraq.

the war powers act?
it is my opinion (ok i said it), that that act would be held unconstitutional
if challenged in the supreme court. or not, because they often use some
weird non-constitutional terminology such as "national interest" or something goofy like that which is clearly the interests of the domestically powerful.

the war powers act was a feeble attempt to reign the imperial workings
of us foreign policy. it's like it coopted opposition to war making.

If memory serves, a us president is supposed to give a report every
3 months AND get reauthorization every 3 months under the that act.
Has this occurred?


Maybe you're just talking the 'legal' arguement and I shouldn't hold it against you.
Perhaps you are not showing whether or not you believe this stuff to be immoral.
war is our common enemy.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, under the Constitution.

Legally, he could get the military to carry out a raid, bombing strike, etc., and as long as it was quick, he wouldn't have to get ANY permission to do so.

On the other hand, the War Powers Resolution is a means to cover himself - so if something happens later, you can't blame the President, because they went along with it.

It is not unconstitutional, and wishing will not make it so.

I have never read anything in the Constitution that is anti-war, or intended to oppose war. It's not supposed to be designed to prevent war from occurring - merely outline who is responsible for approving of it, and who will lead it.

War is as old as human history - in fact, most would say that the majority of history IS war. Yes, I'm giving you the legal argument - but it is the only one that holds weight in any nation on Earth. You won't be able to do a thing in any nation without laws. Making up your own morality and judgments as you go along went out at the same time as the divine right of kings.

As for morality, I presume that you've had precious little exposure to real life - up until now.

You'll find that high minded moral thoughts are about as useful in survival situations as the Pope's hat.

Nations act in their own interest. You need to read about realpolitik.



You mean the sick replacement of ethics that Macevelli and
Kissinger alike evoke?

Machevelli may have not deserved prison time,
but Henry the K clearly should have stayed in Germany.
That guy's a freak.
Sabotage a peace agreement because you can 'get more'?!?

Yeah, he was really interested in peace.
The nobel committee said they made 2 mistakes in their history,
never giving the peace prize to Gandhi, and giving one to Henry Kissinger.

'nations' have their own interests?
Who makes that up?
Who decides that?
The domestically powerful. No secret.
They'd send the rest of us off to war if they viewed it to be in their
interests to do so.
I've got more in common with a sweatshop worker in Indonesia than
I do with their slave owner at Nike.
It's a different form of slave trade but equally repugnant.
Gawd.
Workers, they don't have rights, neither do slaves, or 'merciless Indian savages'. Or gays of women for that matter, especially if my name is
Unocal and I want to build a pipeline in Afghanistan under Clinton or stuff in Burma.

You mean the sick replacement of ethics that Macevelli and
Kissinger alike evoke?

Machevelli may have not deserved prison time,
but Henry the K clearly should have stayed in Germany.
That guy's a freak.
Sabotage a peace agreement because you can 'get more'?!?

Yeah, he was really interested in peace.
The nobel committee said they made 2 mistakes in their history,
never giving the peace prize to Gandhi, and giving one to Henry Kissinger.

'nations' have their own interests?
Who makes that up?
Who decides that?
The domestically powerful. No secret.
They'd send the rest of us off to war if they viewed it to be in their
interests to do so.
I've got more in common with a sweatshop worker in Indonesia than
I do with their slave owner at Nike.
It's a different form of slave trade but equally repugnant.
Gawd.
Workers, they don't have rights, neither do slaves, or 'merciless Indian savages'. Or gays of women for that matter, especially if my name is
Unocal and I want to build a pipeline in Afghanistan under Clinton or stuff in Burma.


I don't see you doing anything except moaning about the Man and wringing your hands.

The domestically powerful are that way because we all buy and use the products they sell.

Catch-22.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, under the Constitution.

Legally, he could get the military to carry out a raid, bombing strike, etc., and as long as it was quick, he wouldn't have to get ANY permission to do so.

On the other hand, the War Powers Resolution is a means to cover himself - so if something happens later, you can't blame the President, because they went along with it.

It is not unconstitutional, and wishing will not make it so.

I have never read anything in the Constitution that is anti-war, or intended to oppose war. It's not supposed to be designed to prevent war from occurring - merely outline who is responsible for approving of it, and who will lead it.

War is as old as human history - in fact, most would say that the majority of history IS war. Yes, I'm giving you the legal argument - but it is the only one that holds weight in any nation on Earth. You won't be able to do a thing in any nation without laws. Making up your own morality and judgments as you go along went out at the same time as the divine right of kings.

As for morality, I presume that you've had precious little exposure to real life - up until now.

You'll find that high minded moral thoughts are about as useful in survival situations as the Pope's hat.


Yeah, most of history written seems to be war, as also written mostly by
men and the makers (or winners) of war.
But there has always been a lot more going on in the world besides war.
Like eating, breathing, singing, reading, playing games, caring for the sick, etc.... the natural stuff of life. disagreements also are a natural thing in
life. but war isn't. and just because something has seemingly always been
doesn't mean it always will be or has to be.

'war is natural, you are just young and naive'.

I guess all those 70 year old nuns that get arrested
in civil disobedience don't know much either.




you don't have to defend every single thing your country does (the same place I was born and live). the US's constitution states 2 places war making is legal. one, of an actual attack on one of the states, and 2 with a congressional declaration of war.
the constitution, which I agree, Bush should actually adhere to it,
says nothing of 'war powers act'.
"use the powers of war, but it's sure not war. tee-hee"
the entire way the cia & fbi are funded is utterly unconstitional as well.
the Congress holds the purse strings and is supposed to take an annual accounting of all funds. cia's & fbi's funding is secret, thus unconstituitional.
but what would you expect from a group of international gansters, right?

I don't see you doing anything except moaning about the Man and wringing your hands.

The domestically powerful are that way because we all buy and use the products they sell.

Catch-22.



never mind the robber barron era that never ended they just invented P.R.,
the enthronement of corporations in our law system,
the additude that allowed that, from the beginning (of the US) that
non-property holders ought not get a vote, 'the rabble'.

New offer on Bin Laden

Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Wednesday October 17, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html

Yeah, most of history written seems to be war, as also written mostly by
men and the makers (or winners) of war.
But there has always been a lot more going on in the world besides war.
Like eating, breathing, singing, reading, playing games, caring for the sick, etc.... the natural stuff of life. disagreements also are a natural thing in
life. but war isn't. and just because something has seemingly always been
doesn't mean it always will be or has to be.

'war is natural, you are just young and naive'.

I guess all those 70 year old nuns that get arrested
in civil disobedience don't know much either.

you don't have to defend every single thing your country does (the same place I was born and live). the US's constitution states 2 places war making is legal. one, of an actual attack on one of the states, and 2 with a congressional declaration of war.
the constitution, which I agree, Bush should actually adhere to it,
says nothing of 'war powers act'.
"use the powers of war, but it's sure not war. tee-hee"
the entire way the cia & fbi are funded is utterly unconstitional as well.
the Congress holds the purse strings and is supposed to take an annual accounting of all funds. cia's & fbi's funding is secret, thus unconstituitional.
but what would you expect from a group of international gansters, right?


When you actually get into combat, you discover that what you do in order to survive has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with politics or international law.


This - "use the powers of war, but it's sure not war. tee-hee" - is not an example of how anyone thinks.

"the entire way the cia & fbi are funded is utterly unconstitional as well.
the Congress holds the purse strings and is supposed to take an annual accounting of all funds. cia's & fbi's funding is secret, thus unconstituitional."

Wrong - their books are reviewed by the intelligence committees. So their funding is not as secret as you imagine.

I would suggest you take some classes in US government before jumping to conclusions about how things are run.